November 20, 2019

Once Again, Proposal In Idaho Charging Hunters/Ranchers to Control Wolves

Scam*Editor’s Note* – First let me say that I am about to make a lot of enemies (nothing new). I would also like to say that it is easy for me to offer commentary and opinion on this wolf issue when I don’t live in Idaho, nor do I have anything at stake (other than friends) with or without the presence of wolves. However, I do have the right to voice my opinion.

Nearly one year ago, I published an article in disagreement with a bill in Idaho, proposed by Rep. Judy Boyle, whom I would like to consider a friend. Her bill would have added $4.00 to the cost of a wolf hunting permit and take $8.00 from each wolf hunting tag sold to pay for livestock losses to ranchers.

And now I am reading that Idaho’s Governor “Butch” Otter is proposing to allot $2 million in start-up fees to create an entity for the purpose of funding wolf population control. After the one-time $2 million, then the funding will come from, “annual contributions of $110,000 from members of the livestock industry and a match from Idaho sportsmen thereafter. Some of that funding will come from hunting licensing in the state, Siddoway said.”

Senator Jeff Siddoway, is a sheep rancher in Idaho and over the past year had a mass killing of his sheep by wolves. He states:

“Anything that reduces the wolf population is a good thing,” Siddoway said. “I don’t think there’s a person in the state that could give you an accurate estimate about how many wolves we have. All we’re hoping is that if we get a reduction in numbers, that our losses are ultimately going to be less.”

I can’t say that I feel his pain because I’ve never had to endure such losses with anything, and those losses are due to not only people protecting a nasty wild dog but introducing it into a landscape that had been vacant of wolves for many decades. This action could have and should have been prevented from the beginning.

Also as a result of introduced, Government wolves, the hunting industry in Idaho, has for the most part, gone to hell in a hand basket.

While some are expressing joy and a victory that a funded program said to be focused on “wolf control,” I wonder how many people have any idea just what the Gov’s ideas or definition of wolf control are?

And consider this statement by Mr. Siddoway:

“It’ll allow more people to go out and actually do the hunting and trapping,” he said. “It’ll finance that. Some of the work may be done aerially either by fixed-wing (aircraft) or helicopter, depending on the terrain.”

Can you imagine what will happen the first time the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, or some other Idaho government agency, attempts to fly aircraft for the purpose of killing wolves? This will be tied up in the courts for years, leaving only the, “allow more people to go out and actually do the hunting and trapping.” See, “To Catch a Wolf.”

So far, all efforts put forth with wolf hunting and trapping has done little to “control” wolf populations. Even a recent, purpose-driven wolf and coyote killing derby resulted in no wolves killed. If Idaho can find enough money to pay enough hunters and trappers of wolves, for a long enough period of time, to make it worth their while, then it may prove helpful.

But this isn’t really my gripe. My gripe is that this is no victory. This is akin to ask a feller to braid his own rope for his own hanging. Wolves were dumped in Idaho and just who was it that made that decision? Did the hunters and the livestock industry, along with all the citizens of Idaho, get to vote on this? From information I have found over the years, it was the fish and game department who illegally authorized the Federal Government to dump the wolves and litter the landscape with disease. What was done about that?

Professionals in the field of wolves, were asked what would happen if wolves were introduced. Any scientific notions that opposed introduction of wolves, were ignored. What was done about that?

To date, the Federal Government, in cahoots with the Idaho Government, have made all the decisions, mostly all on their own, to infest the forests of Idaho with killing machines that have endangered the lives of people, destroyed ranching, put many outfitters out of business, spread human killing diseases across the plain, seriously destroyed the elk herd, raised hell with deer and moose, etc.

In addition to all of this, Idaho had the audacity to then turn around and charge hunters for a permit and tag to kill these vermin when populations got to be at least 10 times what government officials once declared as a “recovered” population. How much hatred can exist toward the outdoor sportsman?

And now that the hunters and trappers are helping to pay those who destroyed their passions and livelihoods, who continue to protect these nasty animals, the Governor of the Gem State wants the victims of their crooked and failed wolf worshiping introduction program, to pay to “control” wolves. If that ain’t fascist and dictatorial government at its best I don’t know what is. I wonder. Are rape victims require to pay an additional tax in order to “control” rapists? How about murder victims?

I wise man once told me that the epitome of ignorance was when a person meets with somebody that wants to take advantage of them, they get screwed over and yet walk away with a smile thinking they had achieved a great victory.

While I agree that killing wolves is a good thing, it is a damned shame that the victims are being asked to pay for it. What kind of justice is this?

In addition, the article states the make-up of a board of directors who will oversee this communistic plan:

…the board will be co-chaired by Fish and Game’s director and the director of the Idaho Department of Agriculture. The remaining membership will be appointed by Otter and will include a representative of Idaho sportsmen, a representative of livestock owners and a member at-large. That at-large member will likely represent the interests of wolf advocates.

If the member at large will actually be a representative of the “wolf advocates”, then how much in higher taxes are “wolf advocates” going to pay in order to have a voice on this board? Isn’t it one of President Obama’s demands for “an even playing field” to require the same from everyone, or does this work only in the direction that fits an agenda? If so, then there needs to be compensation paid by “wolf advocates” so they can have a voice. Excuse the punny story but isn’t this just a bit akin to Ben Franklin’s analogy of two wolves and a sheep sitting down to discuss what’s for dinner?

Killing wolves is a good thing; the more the better, from my perspective. But to kick the livestock owners and hunters and trappers in the groin, over something they didn’t want in the first place is wrong on every level. Isn’t this corruption at its ultimate? The rotten bastards who were responsible for bringing imported wolves back to Idaho should all be jailed.

Why not levy a tax on government employees salaries and make them pay for their damned mess they created?

As I first pointed out, I don’t live in Idaho and I don’t have a dog in this fight, except for the fact that these kind of fascist and dictatorial toned down pogroms tend to filter over into other states. I see no victory here in agreeing with Gov. Otter’s proposal; one that was buried in some other bills I am being told.

If the program passes, it will likely be because ranchers like Mr. Siddoway, along with sportsmen, (and can we really blame them?) will follow the premise that killing any amount of wolves is a good thing. And, only time will tell if such a program will accomplish what Siddoway and others believe it will.

History should be convincing enough that this program will fail and/or the money will be used for something else – probably another program geared against the efforts of the Livestock Industry and sportsmen.

Share

In Spite of Directors’ Claims, Idaho Fish and Game Refuses to Control Wolves Decimating Elk Herds

Republished on this website with permission from the editor/author.

The Outdoorsman – Bulletin Number 51, Dec. 2012 – April 17, 2013 Pgs. 1-3.

In Spite of Directors’ Claims, Idaho Fish and Game Refuses to Control Wolves Decimating Elk Herds

by George Dovel

In January 1999 I attended a predator symposium in Boise co-sponsored by the Idaho Outfitters and Guides Assn., Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game and eight other groups. Like many of the 17 panel members whose unsupported testimony claimed wolves would have limited impact on deer, elk and moose numbers, Wolf Education Center’s David Langhorst claimed poachers kill 10 times as much game as wolves do.

But Wildlife Ecologist Dr. Charles Kay provided facts to support his testimony – that the wolves transplanted from Canada would eventually drive Idaho’s already declining big game populations into a predator pit.

Beginning with his August 1993 Petersen’s Hunting article titled, “Wolves in the West – what the government does not want you to know about wolf recovery,” Dr. Kay had published extensive research exposing federal and many state biologists’ false claim that protecting wolves would create healthy game populations.

Biologist Can’t Refute Facts – Attacks Messenger

Unable to refute any of Dr. Kay’s expert testimony, one biologist publicly confronted him and implied that his testimony was not valid because he was not a biologist.

But Dr. Kay snapped back at him, “I’d be ashamed to admit it if I was, the way you biologists have destroyed our wildlife.”

Pretending that a simple degree in wildlife biology bestows the wisdom, integrity and judgment needed to recommend real solutions ignores reality. And attacking the credibility of the messenger is a tactic used by those who lack facts to defend their position.

These two observations are based on half a century of working alongside and closely observing wildlife biologists. Deceiving the citizen hunters who pay their wages has become a specialty with most of them.

Geist – Wolves Caused ~90% Decline in Deer Harvest

But like Dr. Kay, Dr. Valerius Geist, the featured speaker at the 1999 Symposium, strived to enlighten rather than deceive. He spent a couple of hours patiently explaining to those in attendance how the return of wolves to Vancouver Island resulted in nearly a 90% decline in the number of black-tailed deer harvested each year by hunters.

He warned the audience that strict control of wolf numbers in Idaho must occur to prevent a similar decline in Idaho big game populations. IDFG Director Steve Mealy, who was the Symposium facilitator, summed up the consensus that wolf predation is largely additive and wolves must be limited to preserve healthy game populations.

Despite being provided ample opportunity to question Dr. Geist, Idaho biologists and Commissioners remained quiet. Yet a group of them confronted me a few minutes later and said, “He told us what was going to happen but he didn’t tell us what to do.”

Two months later, Mealey was fired by a 4-to-3 vote, and replaced with a series of pro-wolf Directors. But on Jan. 5 2006 Interior Secretary Gale Norton signed an agreement with Idaho Gov. Dirk Kempthorne designating Idaho to act as its agent, and directing IDFG to “implement lethal control or translocation of wolves to reduce impacts on wild ungulates in accordance with the process outlined in the amended 10J Rule.” (emphasis added)

That was seven years ago and during those seven years, IDFG has had the authority and the duty to lethally control wolves to reduce their impact on elk, moose and deer – either using the 10J Rule with the 2002 Wolf Plan as a guide – or following the 2002 Wolf Plan during the two periods, including now, when the wolves were/are delisted.

So How Many Total Wolves Has Idaho Lethally Controlled to Reduce the Impact on Wild Ungulates During the Past Seven Years?

The answer is only nineteen – all in the Lolo Zone.

That 19, plus the few wolves harvested by hunters and outfitters in the Lolo Zone, failed to halt the dramatic annual decline in its elk population and harvest. Yet in the following exchange of communications dated Jan. 21, 2013, Moore tells Viola sportsman Jim Hagedorn that many people have simply not been exposed to the Department “science” on managing wolf predation on Idaho’s elk.

TV Interviewed Moore, Stone – Ignored Citizens

On Jan. 17, 2013 KTVB published interviews with IDFG Director Moore and Defenders of Wildlife wolf promoter Suzanne Stone at IDFG Headquarters in Boise. Moore said hunters have done a good job controlling wolves in farm and ranch areas, but said wolves are increasing and further reducing elk populations in back country areas “like the Clearwater, Lolo and Selway.”

He announced the F&G Commission had removed $50,000 from a research project and directed it to be spent killing and trapping wolves in remote areas like these. Of course Stone disagreed and said the $50,000 should be spent on non-lethal methods which she falsely claimed were more effective than lethal control.

As always happens in the urban media, KTVB ignored the majority of Idaho citizens who share ownership of the wildlife resource, and the multi-million dollar loss the exploitation of that resource by both Moore and Stone is costing them every year. This understandably upset Viola sportsman leader Jim Hagedorn who, along with many others, contributes a great deal of time and money seeking honest scientific wildlife management.

On Jan. 20, the following letter from Hagedorn to Director Moore appeared in the Forever Free Press:

A direct question for Virgil Moore:

“[IDFG’s] job is actually to conserve wolves,” says Suzanne Stone with Defenders of Wildlife. “We propose that commission use the money for non-lethal tools that are more effective in reducing livestock losses, and certainly more effective in reducing the impact on wildlife, including wolves,” Stone said.

“Moore says he’s putting together opportunities for advocates like Stone to talk to Fish and Game biologists about their management techniques.”

Director Moore, would you please explain to me why you would waste your time, your IDFG employees’ time, and MY MONEY, by opening a channel of communication to your (or MY) employees so a clearly deranged individual (Stone) who can NEVER seem to get her facts straight with the media, or anyone else for that matter, can have ANYTHING to do with advising FISH and GAME management in Idaho?
——

The following day, Hagedorn emailed a copy to Moore and to several legislators, commissioners and other knowledgeable individuals. The subject line said simply, “How about an answer Virgil?

He quickly received the following response from Moore:

Jim,
I decided to go over the science that wolves are important predators to elk. Based on the testimony at the Commission meeting last week by 16 individuals it is apparent to the Commission that many people simply have not been exposed to the Department science on managing predation on Idaho’s elk. The meeting with folks concerned about our wolf reduction efforts is to allow a more in-depth opportunity to present Department information and answer questions that could not be addressed at the public meeting.

Ms. Stone is looking for an opportunity to do more of the non-lethal management that has been tried in the Blain (sic) County area. It certainly will not work for wildlife depredation and does not work in most livestock grazing situations either. Her statements do not represent what we are trying to accomplish by providing the correct information on hunting, trapping and aerial methods of reducing wolf numbers.

Jim – I believe some of these folks can be moderated by the correct information based on my discussion with some of them at the Commission meeting- as they do not have the correct information to judge the Department program properly. I do not believe, as you do, that Defenders of Wildlife can be convinced though but the discussion of what we are planning is open to public discussion and public input and we do have an obligation to meet with folks when appropriate.

I hope this helps. Let me know if we need to talk and I’ll give you a call.

Virgil
——

The Facts

The Department “science” on managing wolf predation of elk is a myth.

Every authority on wolf-ungulate management – including L. David Mech – who has advised IDFG on this issue, has warned that 70-80% of wolves must be removed initially, and the reduced numbers maintained for at least five years in order to restore healthy ungulate populations.

When the Lolo elk herd was still estimated at about 4,000 animals, IDFG biologists carefully prepared a 10J Plan to lethally remove 75% of the wolves from the Lolo Zone the first year, and kill enough wolves for the next four years to maintain 20-30% of the original number. But instead of implementing the plan to rebuild the Lolo elk herd, the Commission voted to use it only as “leverage” (i.e. blackmail) to FWS to insure they would be allowed to manage wolves as game animals.

They got the “on again – off again” right to hold a wolf hunting season but hunters killed only 13 Lolo wolves and the Lolo elk population went down the tube. Anyone who takes the time to compare IDFG’s published annual elk harvest statistics will find that elk harvests have also nose-dived every year in all back country units since the Commission approved the 10J plan – but refused to use it.

And Moore’s promise to the Commissioners and the public when he was hired as Director two years ago that he would also implement wolf control in 2011 in the Selway and other units where wolves were also impacting elk – was never kept. Between 2006 and 2011, both of Moore’s predecessors, Steve Huffaker and Cal Groen, made similar promises that were also never kept.

It is worth noting that at the same time former Director Steve Mealey was telling a packed Commission Meeting audience that wolves were having a detrimental effect on Idaho elk herds, his Wildlife Bureau Chief Huffaker was standing in the back of that room telling a reporter that wolves had co-evolved with elk for ten thousand years and would “reach a balance” without man’s interference.

In February of 2006 when the IDFG plan to remove 75% of the Lolo Zone wolves was being “scoped” by the public, a letter writing campaign by radical pro-wolf groups supplied then Director Huffaker with the excuses he needed to convince the Commission not to control the wolves.

A Feb. 14, 2006 letter from Tami Williams of Wolf Haven International at Tenino, Washington, reminded Huffaker of the large cost of paying (Wildlife Services) to control 75% of the Lolo wolves. She speculated IDFG would get a hunting season if it waited and said, “With patience, wolf control could end up as a revenue generator rather than a revenue drain for IDFG.”

Instead of obeying Idaho Wildlife Policy in I.C. Sec. 36-103 (to preserve, protect, perpetuate and manage all wildlife), Huffaker and his biologists chose to listen to the wolf advocates and sacrifice the Lolo elk herd. Large Carnivore Coordinator Steve Nadeau prepared a 2006 10J wolf control plan claiming that declining habitat – not over-harvesting and later wolf predation – was the primary cause of the elk decline.

Nadeau’s lie ignored Clearwater elk research biologist George Pauley’s long-term and well documented research concluding that allowing hunters to kill too many bull elk was the cause of the steady decline in Lolo elk from 1986 – 2005. Read “IDFG – No Evidence Links Lolo Elk Loss to Habitat!” on Pages 6-8 of Outdoorsman No. 40.

Ignoring Pauley’s 1996 warning to stop over-harvesting bull elk, Clearwater Region Supervisor Herb Pollard increased the number of 1996 antlerless elk permits in the Lolo Zone from 350 to 1,900! In Dec. of 1996 when Steve Mealey was hired as IDFG Director, he replaced Pollard with Natural Resources Policy Director Cal Groen to halt the deliberate over-harvest.

But in 1997, Groen reduced the 1,900 antlerless permits by only 50 and changed 525 permits so hunts would end on Nov. 30 instead of Nov. 13. See results of Pollard’s and Groen’s mismanagement in harvest chart below:

elkharvestidaho

The 2006 10J wolf control plan could easily have been corrected by replacing Nadeau’s false claims with Pauley’s facts, and then submitting it to FWS. But even two years later, in 2008, IDFG Director Groen and F&G Commissioner Gary Power told the Legislature and the media that IDFG had no intention of controlling wolves in Idaho’s wilderness areas.

The appointment of Groen to the Governor’s staff in 2007 was apparently seen as an opportunity for IDFG to ignore Idaho law and the Legislature. Groen’s direction to Nadeau, to write an IDFG Wolf Plan containing massive changes to the only wolf plan approved by the Legislature, and Groen’s failure to transmit that plan for legislative approval or rejection, reflects his willingness to ignore state law and the welfare of Idaho wildlife.

The IDFG conspiracy that bypassed the lawful process and resulted in Groen, Otter and Otter’s Office of Species Conservation telling FWS Director Dale Hall that IDFG will manage for five times as many wolves as agreed to in the FWS Recovery Plan, happened without public or legislative input.

Idaho’s 2002 wolf plan emphasizes several times on pages 21 and 23 how extremely important it is for IDFG to conduct an annual census of selected important prey species. The Lolo Zone elk met every criterion for annual monitoring – yet in the 11 years since that plan was approved by the Legislature – IDFG has conducted only two counts in Unit 10 and three counts in Unit 12!

And when Nadeau wrote the bastard wolf plan in 2007 – approved unanimously by the F&G Commission on March 6, 2008 – the “annual count” language was changed to once every three to five years, plus it allowed biologists to wait another three years before taking any action! On May 22, 2008 Groen gave Nadeau an “Employee of the Year” Award for “outstanding management/leadership.”

In February of 2009, Pauley met with Montana sportsmen and the media and said there were 130-150 wolves in the Lolo Zone. He advised that the State of Idaho was making a request to shoot about 80% (104-120) of them, and would leave a minimum of 25 wolves.

Although Pauley said the 10J proposal would be presented to FWS shortly and Unsworth confirmed it, neither had any intention of controlling wolves. This was simply designed to show hard core wolf advocates they had better not oppose delisting or IDFG would kill 100 wolves in one location.

Even after Senator Jeff Siddoway forced IDFG to commit to control Lolo Zone wolves during the 2011-2012 winter, Deputy Director Unsworth ordered the helicopter control halted on the third day despite ideal conditions. Only 14 wolves were taken in that brief control action and Wildlife Services told me I would have to talk to Unsworth to find out why. The wolf control figures Unsworth claimed would reduce big game predation in the Lolo Zone were far too low to have any measurable impact.

Note: This article and many more like it can be found in The Outdoorsman magazine. Please click this link to a PDF page where you can print out a form and subscribe to the magazine. The work of George Doval, editor of The Outdoorsman, is arguably the finest work to be found anywhere in print or online publications.

Share